From: Jos Hulzink <josh@stack.nl>
To: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
"Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
Cc: Robert Varga <nite@hq.alert.sk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:21:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200211012221.56346.josh@stack.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021101194711.GB714@suse.de>
On Friday 01 November 2002 20:47, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:37:26AM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote:
> > ACPI implements PM but that's not all it implements. Is making CONFIG_PM
> > true if ACPI or APM are on a viable option? I think that would more
> > accurately reflect reality.
> >
> > Or can we get rid of CONFIG_PM?
>
> I'm not sure of places that do it off the top of my head, but
> CONFIG_PM would save us having to do ugly CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI
> tests.
This seems to be true from what I have seen of the source so far.
I'm thinking....
ACPI is more than Power Management. The fact that a system supports ACPI does
not mean that the user wants to use power management. On the other hand, I
see no reason why a user does NOT want a system to auto poweroff, and sleep
and suspend are easy to configure in BIOS, or by linux tools. (Does Linux
take over the BIOS settings for suspend & sleep ? Don't use them, so
donnow....) What I wanna say: I think it is okay if CONFIG_PM is replaced by
CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI
Other issue: Are ACPI and APM not mutually exclusive ? If so, I would propose
a selection box: <ACPI> <APM> <none> with related options shown below. Hmzz..
there the issue of the fact that ACPI is more than power management shows up
again.
And well... CONFIG_APM || CONFIG_ACPI might look ugly to you, I think it isn't
that bad, besides, you gain a lot from the configuration side. IMHO
configuring the kernel has become hard enough with the new input layer
already :( Maybe it is time for a "[ ] show expert options" in the
configuration tool...
Jos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-01 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-01 19:37 2.5.45 build failed with ACPI turned on Grover, Andrew
2002-11-01 19:47 ` Dave Jones
2002-11-01 21:21 ` Jos Hulzink [this message]
2002-11-01 20:31 ` Dave Jones
2002-11-02 20:11 ` Jos Hulzink
2002-11-06 0:38 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-11-06 15:08 ` David Woodhouse
2002-11-06 16:33 ` Bill Davidsen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-31 19:45 Robert Varga
2002-11-01 19:02 ` Jos Hulzink
2002-11-01 19:12 ` Jos Hulzink
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200211012221.56346.josh@stack.nl \
--to=josh@stack.nl \
--cc=andrew.grover@intel.com \
--cc=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nite@hq.alert.sk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.